What percentage of blackjack players are good counters?
Quote: BW21Interested to hear some thoughts on what percentage of blackjack players are good card counters? I think about one in 10000 or so have strong enough skills to play with a decent edge. There are quite a few more that can play a break even game. I can say that I have seen hundreds of players and not one of them knew Near perfect basic strategy.
I think it's not as bad as that. I usually say for every hundred that say they can count maybe 1 or 2 can .... don't know for sure; it's just an opinion. You don't have to be a genius to count, but a lot of little things (the right game/rules, penetration, basic strategy, Ill 18 & surrender deviations, the discipline to count accurately, bankroll requirements, minimum spread needed, 1/2 or some fraction of Kelly, ability to blend in, emotional stability (no on tilt), religious accurate recording of wins/losses/avg. bet/hours, the math to check your actual vs expected win after a large # or hands played, to name a few) are necessary. Practice, practice, practice.
I think it's a lot harder to survive as a counter now for a variety of reasons (deteriorating rules and better surveillance, et. al.) Some can make a living at it; my day job pays better. I'm also seeing the pit react to wild spreads even when not counting more and more.
As a side note, card counting is EXCELLENT for the casino (read what Bill Zender or max Rubin has to say about them). The illusion that the game can be beat wins much more money for the casino. So does the rumor of dice setting (don't want the debate ... I'll take your word YOU can do it; I cannot ..... ). I've had many friends say 'teach me to card count', and after hearing me tell them what they have to do, how hard they have to practice, and the real amount they can expect to win just say 'forget about it'. Hell, I don't like to count anymore but I've done it so much it just happens naturally.
mel
Casinos seem to have forgotten how few players can beat them when implementing the terrible shuffle point policy. Cutting off 1.5 to 2 decks is nuts on a shoe game. A half deck should be the standard, but enough scare stories and bean counters forced a big change. The average player getting more hands at a 2% disadvantage would easily make up for any Aps.
Quote: BW21Agreed. Without counting the game would not be nearly as big. The allure of the game being beatable is a big driver.
Casinos seem to have forgotten how few players can beat them when implementing the terrible shuffle point policy. Cutting off 1.5 to 2 decks is nuts on a shoe game. A half deck should be the standard, but enough scare stories and bean counters forced a big change. The average player getting more hands at a 2% disadvantage would easily make up for any Aps.
Cutting off > 1/2 deck slows the game down. slowing the game down = less money for the casinos. bean counters are stupid.
Quote: BW21Interested to hear some thoughts on what percentage of blackjack players are good card counters? I think about one in 10000 or so have strong enough skills to play with a decent edge .
It's not that low. I've spotted other counters lots of times. I would say 1 in 1,000.
Quote: WizardIt's not that low. I've spotted other counters lots of times. I would say 1 in 1,000.
Location dependant. In my area, maybe 1 in 36,783.
Quote: IbeatyouracesLocation dependant. In my area, maybe 1 in 36,783.
a bit more than a two byte signed integer (32,767) :)
mel
I know that's my problem. Given 20-30 seconds between hands, I can keep count, but faster than that, I get distracted sometimes. I need more practice.
I've also ran in to many counters at H17 games where the house edge is just over .5%, yet I see them upping their bets at TC +1 like you would if it was a S17 (below .5%) game (and yes I've asked them after if they were using Hi/Low or another count, etc, etc). They might be amazing at +1's and -1's, but understanding the rest of the rules/concepts is what makes a counter successful, not just the plus and minus 1's.
In my opinion, far too many counters don't understand or play for these other concepts, which ultimately is their demise.
1% of 1% are the successful card counters. So let's say there's 340 million people in America, of which 150,000,000 play blackjack "on occasion." Yes, I know this number has got to be MUCH lower, but let's start here =). So 1% of 150,000,000 are counters, which equals 1.5 million counters. Of this, 1% have a truly winning game, which equals 15,000 winning counters.
So even at WAY overestimating the number of blackjack players/etc, in America there's probably about 15,000 winning counters. Yeah, change all the rules/penetration/etc/etc just for these 15,000 players. Never mind you're killing the game for the other 149,985,000 players and ruining the games popularity. Geniuses.
Key word in the title of this thread: GOOD And that, Axelwolf answers your question about speed count. :)
Romes....150 million of the US 340 million population plays blackjack? Do you have any more? .......whatever you are smoking.
"Winning game" is interesting. I run across counters fairly frequently. But winning counter? a lot less frequently. Most, that that I identify as counters are playing very low limit and usually not spreading enough, are afraid to put out bigger bets after a loss or two and don't appear to have the bankroll to withstand even a little negative variance. They are probably playing a break even game at best.
Counter that are playing a winning game. I see 1 or 2 a week and they almost all are low limit players. A lot of guys that appear to be retired. I'd say I know a couple dozen by face (not name) at the rotation of stores I play.
Professional level counter? These are counters playing a definite winning game, playing reasonable money (at least my green to mid black stakes or higher). They might be professional players, but more likely some sort of supplemental or semi professional thing going on. I only see a handful a year, maybe 6-8.
I avoid the high limit rooms, because there are too many eyes on those tables, so I probably miss some of the higher limit guys.
But........
The operative word is "good". If this means winning then they not only can technically play but they have, and understand, a bankroll fit for the job.
How many blackjack players are there? Well, Total Rewards has over 40 million members and that does not include the many other casinos. I expect most of them have played but few are counters.
Perhaps, a more accurate view would be to look at memberships on the forums to determine how many counters. Now we likely get down to less than 10,000. I do not believe 10% of those are both technically proficient and profitable. So, IMHO the range might be 300-800.
The interesting collateral point is that the casinos are costing themselves billions of dollars in revenue trying to protect themselves from the 300-800. As a business person, it is hard to understand how this "head in the sand" management mentality is allowed to exist. Fear of the unknown is a very powerful force.
Quote: StealthSince no one really knows the answer we can just guess.
But........
The operative word is "good". If this means winning then they not only can technically play but they have, and understand, a bankroll fit for the job.
How many blackjack players are there? Well, Total Rewards has over 40 million members and that does not include the many other casinos. I expect most of them have played but few are counters.
Perhaps, a more accurate view would be to look at memberships on the forums to determine how many counters. Now we likely get down to less than 10,000. I do not believe 10% of those are both technically proficient and profitable. So, IMHO the range might be 300-800.
The interesting collateral point is that the casinos are costing themselves billions of dollars in revenue trying to protect themselves from the 300-800. As a business person, it is hard to understand how this "head in the sand" management mentality is allowed to exist. Fear of the unknown is a very powerful force.
Because there's a few dark-siders who can profit from fear mongering.
Ha, as mentioned in my post I know it's well, well, under that. I was making a demonstrative point! And if I smoked something funny, I'd share with you KJ.Quote: kewlj...Romes....150 million of the US 340 million population plays blackjack? Do you have any more? .......whatever you are smoking...
So at a ridiculously high example, I estimated 15,000 "winning" or "good" counters. Stealth estimated (fairly) 300-800. Even if it's a few thousand, casinos just have got to sooner or later realize that deteriorating the games is hurting them by a factor of 100 worse than it's hurting the counting community... idiots.
Quote: Romes... which equals 1.5 million counters.
I must have seen most of them in the years that I played at Mohegan Sun.
Always a guy in his mid-twenties to early thirties, slouched at third base, chin buried in his chest, baggy sweatshirt, and a dark baseball cap pulled down low.
Quote: kewlj"Winning game" is interesting. I run across counters fairly frequently. But winning counter? a lot less frequently. Most, that that I identify as counters are playing very low limit and usually not spreading enough, are afraid to put out bigger bets after a loss or two and don't appear to have the bankroll to withstand even a little negative variance. They are probably playing a break even game at best.
You guys are way overestimating how much you have to do correctly to swing the odds into your favor.
Take a 8D H17 NS DAS with 65% pen (awful game)
Basic strategy only (no insurance! no index plalys!)
Spread 1-4 (awful!), betting 2 at TC +1 (too early!), 3 at TC +2 and 4 at TC>= +3
A green chipper can still make $30/100 hands at this game. Yeah, the SCORE sucks and variance is probably going to make them quit long before any casino backs them off. But they aren't losing players. The losing players are the ones who count by "noticing" there were "a bunch" of little cards out the last 2 rounds.
I'd venture to guess over 95% of the people moving a number up and down by 1 on a slide rule in their head based on every card coming out is playing with an edge, however small in relation to the variance.
Are you sure you aren't off a decimal? For those rules, spread ($25-$100), and the .65% HE, I'm showing $3.73 cents per 100 hands. Not only did I do this for 75% PEN, but factor in 1-2 mistakes, cover plays, tipping, etc, and you're certainly not playing a winning game.Quote: sabreYou guys are way overestimating how much you have to do correctly to swing the odds into your favor.
Take a 8D H17 NS DAS with 65% pen (awful game)
Basic strategy only (no insurance! no index plalys!)
Spread 1-4 (awful!), betting 2 at TC +1 (too early!), 3 at TC +2 and 4 at TC>= +3
A green chipper can still make $30/100 hands at this game. Yeah, the SCORE sucks and variance is probably going to make them quit long before any casino backs them off. But they aren't losing players. The losing players are the ones who count by "noticing" there were "a bunch" of little cards out the last 2 rounds.
I'd venture to guess over 95% of the people moving a number up and down by 1 on a slide rule in their head based on every card coming out is playing with an edge, however small in relation to the variance.
Also, regardless of "edge" the other point that was being made is if you have no concept of bankroll or RoR, your edge is erroneous as you're going to go broke at some point and that's where a lot of players "give up" because it clearly "doesn't work."
Quote: RomesAre you sure you aren't off a decimal? For those rules, spread ($25-$100), and the .65% HE, I'm showing $3.73 cents per 100 hands. Not only did I do this for 75% PEN, but factor in 1-2 mistakes, cover plays, tipping, etc, and you're certainly not playing a winning game.
I'm a moron. My numbers included the lucky ladies sidebet.
I get that some say that there are some games, that with perfect play, you can minimize house edge to some fraction of 1%. I can understand it - but it's hard to accept.
If I have deep pockets, and I open a casino, why would I have a game where someone with discipline, a sharp mind for math and a deep bankroll could consistently win?
I'm certain that all businesses an entrepreneur would open come with risk; but it seems to me this is just foolish.
I look at the pay tables for some video poker and get frustrated at the casinos that don't have 6/9 (lucky to find 6/9 in the gulf coast). But, I fully get why most casinos don't have it - the risk.
So, if counting is so effective, why haven't the casinos just given up on all the expenses of dealing with counters and just modified the game so that they don't have to worry about the AP players? Is it that much of a balancing act between win/loss?
Ah, that makes sense. 100 hph for ladies is about a ~$24/hour boost =).Quote: sabreI'm a moron. My numbers included the lucky ladies sidebet.
Half of the reason blackjack became the popular game it is, is because of Ed Thorp and his book Beat the Dealer. It showed the common people that the game was indeed beatable. However, he was a math professor and generally taken as a pretty smart guy, so instead of all reading his book they just assumed you had to be some genius to do it. This is why the majority don't even try to count cards.Quote: ukaserex...So, if counting is so effective, why haven't the casinos just given up on all the expenses of dealing with counters and just modified the game so that they don't have to worry about the AP players? Is it that much of a balancing act between win/loss?
Then you have the other majority, that did read his book... They learn the +1 and -1 and that's it. They have zero concept of bankroll, RoR, variance, etc, etc. Thus while they are counting cards (some poorly some well) they are all going to go broke and it's going to fail. So for ever 1 successful counter pulling out $50/hour they have hundreds and thousands of ploppies donating $10/hour. Quite the profitable trade, if you ask me.
Thorp's book sent a WAVE of action at the casino, most of which they kept because of this very discussion here... 1% of players are counters, and 1% of that 1% are profitable at it. The moment they make the game "unbeatable" people won't play it because it doesn't have the allure that you can beat the game anymore. Not only that, they're losing SO MUCH money trying to stop counters as is. Cutting half a shoe off stops the game and thus stops the cards from going out to the ploppies. Making terrible rules does turn "some" ploppies off from your game. Kicking people out who even progressive bet (el cortez) and being that sweaty in general is just a bad policy for casinos. They shouldn't care if players win or lose... The casino is just a money manager assisting with transactions back and forth on the table in which they take a small fee. They should want as many transactions as possible so they can keep taking their small fee.
The casinos have already lost hundreds of millions if not billions trying to "thwart" counters, and in my opinion, it's all a waste. Not only that, counters are 1 thing, AP players are another. A lot of AP plays aren't about modifying the rules on the games/etc, so how exactly would that stop them? Hint: It wouldn't.
Quote: BW21Interested to hear some thoughts on what percentage of blackjack players are good card counters? I think about one in 10000 or so have strong enough skills to play with a decent edge. There are quite a few more that can play a break even game. I can say that I have seen hundreds of players and not one of them knew Near perfect basic strategy.
Depends what you mean. Out of all blackjack players? Who's considered a blackjack player? Is my dad one because he's played BJ before? Or only those who play every month/week/day?
First of all, I'd say many people at the BJ tables would say they count cards, even though 99% have probably no idea what an index is or 100% BS for their game.
I'd think 1 in 10,000 people who consider themselves a "blackjack player" (whatever that is), take the game seriously enough to make money and put in the hours. They know their indices, their ramp, their EV, and understand the game. Not talking about people who read about CC, spent an hour practicing, and that's it. 1 in 10k are people who actually practice at home, and 99% of the 1in10k use software (CVBJ, etc.).
Quote: Romes
Half of the reason blackjack became the popular game it is, is because of Ed Thorp and his book Beat the Dealer. It showed the common people that the game was indeed beatable. However, he was a math professor and generally taken as a pretty smart guy, so instead of all reading his book they just assumed you had to be some genius to do it. This is why the majority don't even try to count cards.
Then you have the other majority, that did read his book... They learn the +1 and -1 and that's it. They have zero concept of bankroll, RoR, variance, etc, etc. Thus while they are counting cards (some poorly some well) they are all going to go broke and it's going to fail. So for ever 1 successful counter pulling out $50/hour they have hundreds and thousands of ploppies donating $10/hour. Quite the profitable trade, if you ask me.
Thorp's book sent a WAVE of action at the casino, most of which they kept because of this very discussion here... 1% of players are counters, and 1% of that 1% are profitable at it. The moment they make the game "unbeatable" people won't play it because it doesn't have the allure that you can beat the game anymore. Not only that, they're losing SO MUCH money trying to stop counters as is. Cutting half a shoe off stops the game and thus stops the cards from going out to the ploppies. Making terrible rules does turn "some" ploppies off from your game. Kicking people out who even progressive bet (el cortez) and being that sweaty in general is just a bad policy for casinos. They shouldn't care if players win or lose... The casino is just a money manager assisting with transactions back and forth on the table in which they take a small fee. They should want as many transactions as possible so they can keep taking their small fee.
The casinos have already lost hundreds of millions if not billions trying to "thwart" counters, and in my opinion, it's all a waste. Not only that, counters are 1 thing, AP players are another. A lot of AP plays aren't about modifying the rules on the games/etc, so how exactly would that stop them? Hint: It wouldn't.
Sooo, if your assessment is correct/accurate, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, Casino's are wasting a ton of money trying to stop/inhibit a process that only .1 percent of the population that sits at the black jack table - and they still fail to stop/inhibit them.
This suggests that there are a lot of casinos that don't understand the other facets of counting aside from the counting.
(Bankroll, variance, etc)
Interesting stuff. I really need to spend less time reading about this, and more time on the math.
I believe the proper phrase is "Casino's are wasting a f**k ton of money..." =P. They're so scared because some big teams playing big money could actually effect a bottom line of a month, but yet they extend these measures down to their NICKLE tables at some places.Quote: ukaserexSooo, if your assessment is correct/accurate, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, Casino's are wasting a ton of money trying to stop/inhibit a process that only .1 percent of the population that sits at the black jack table - and they still fail to stop/inhibit them.
This suggests that there are a lot of casinos that don't understand the other facets of counting aside from the counting.
(Bankroll, variance, etc)
Interesting stuff. I really need to spend less time reading about this, and more time on the math.
Quote: ukaserexSooo, if your assessment is correct/accurate, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, Casino's are wasting a ton of money trying to stop/inhibit a process that only .1 percent of the population that sits at the black jack table - and they still fail to stop/inhibit them.
This suggests that there are a lot of casinos that don't understand the other facets of counting aside from the counting.
(Bankroll, variance, etc)
Interesting stuff. I really need to spend less time reading about this, and more time on the math.
Yeah, pretty much. Well, sort of.
Yes -- they are wasting a lot of money by trying to stop/inhibit card counters (using multiple decks, cutting off more cards [penetration], convoluted and time-wasting hand-shuffles, mid-shoe entry limits [to some extent], wasting surveillance & floor people's time, etc.).
I think the biggest problem is the bean counters. They figure out someone can spread min to max on their 6 deck shoe game, make $500 an hour, then determine if that person puts in 2,000 hours a year (full time job, right?) then that's $1M! So because of this, they gotta make their 6 deck game cut off 2 decks instead of 0.5, make it H17 instead of S17, and not allow surrender or re-splitting aces. And for good measure, maybe cut the table max in half, just to be sure. Now a full-time card counter can only make $50/hour. That's too much -- so let's get the best card-counter-catcher software [that surveillance people will be too lazy to use], the best facial recognition software [that doesn't work how the bean-counter dreams it'll work], and we'll have the dealers scream at the top of their lungs "CHECKS PLAY!!!" when someone doubles their bet. I heard something about shuffle trackers (grrr!), so let's throw in a 10-minute shuffle routine the dealer can't even remember. Now all we gotta worry about are the evil card-counters making $20/hour, so if anyone is ever suspected of card-counting, we'll have our surveillance team do a skillz check to make sure the guy isn't one of them counting cheaters!!!
I would say casinos especially don't understand the variance aspect of the game. They see a guy going from $5 to 2x$100, wins $1,500 in a lucky 30 minute session, and now they think this guy is making $3K/hour!
I don't know about the whole bankroll thing, though. To a player, bankroll is crucial, since once you hit $0, you can't play anymore. But to a casino, a player's bankroll shouldn't have a standing in whether they deem a player is a threat or not. From the casino's perspective, EV is EV. It shouldn't matter to the casino whether 100 people each have $5K (and put in a total 5,000 hours) or if 5 people with $100K each [playing at the same level as the 100 people] put in a total of 5,000 hours. EV is EV. Even if a majority of the 100 players busted out, there still exist those who hit the positive side of the variance and came out way on top.
PERCEPTION IS REALITY.
Heard for years how players in USA would never play blackjack where dealer takes no whole card and you can lose splits and double downs to a dealer BJ.
NEVER EVER NEVER
But play dealer hit soft 17, no problem.
HE no hole card 0.11 % HE hit soft 17 0.22%
I love and agree with everything you said, except for bankroll. Everything else you said I wish could be put in to a memo and forwarded to every casino all around the world. It simply and easily explains how stupid they're being and how much time/money/etc they're wasting.Quote: RSYeah, pretty much. Well, sort of.
Yes -- they are wasting a lot of money by trying to stop/inhibit card counters (using multiple decks, cutting off more cards [penetration], convoluted and time-wasting hand-shuffles, mid-shoe entry limits [to some extent], wasting surveillance & floor people's time, etc.).
I think the biggest problem is the bean counters. They figure out someone can spread min to max on their 6 deck shoe game, make $500 an hour, then determine if that person puts in 2,000 hours a year (full time job, right?) then that's $1M! So because of this, they gotta make their 6 deck game cut off 2 decks instead of 0.5, make it H17 instead of S17, and not allow surrender or re-splitting aces. And for good measure, maybe cut the table max in half, just to be sure. Now a full-time card counter can only make $50/hour. That's too much -- so let's get the best card-counter-catcher software [that surveillance people will be too lazy to use], the best facial recognition software [that doesn't work how the bean-counter dreams it'll work], and we'll have the dealers scream at the top of their lungs "CHECKS PLAY!!!" when someone doubles their bet. I heard something about shuffle trackers (grrr!), so let's throw in a 10-minute shuffle routine the dealer can't even remember. Now all we gotta worry about are the evil card-counters making $20/hour, so if anyone is ever suspected of card-counting, we'll have our surveillance team do a skillz check to make sure the guy isn't one of them counting cheaters!!!
I would say casinos especially don't understand the variance aspect of the game. They see a guy going from $5 to 2x$100, wins $1,500 in a lucky 30 minute session, and now they think this guy is making $3K/hour!
I don't know about the whole bankroll thing, though. To a player, bankroll is crucial, since once you hit $0, you can't play anymore. But to a casino, a player's bankroll shouldn't have a standing in whether they deem a player is a threat or not. From the casino's perspective, EV is EV. It shouldn't matter to the casino whether 100 people each have $5K (and put in a total 5,000 hours) or if 5 people with $100K each [playing at the same level as the 100 people] put in a total of 5,000 hours. EV is EV. Even if a majority of the 100 players busted out, there still exist those who hit the positive side of the variance and came out way on top.
On bankroll... if I know you only have $1,000 in your pocket, and that you won't play more if it's gone, then sure I'll let you spread $5-$500. If you play for a few hours you'll undoubtedly go broke and leave. While yes this is an extreme example, I feel this is where many counters go wrong too. They learn to count, etc, get $5k together and try to spread $25-$400. Then, when they bust in a few months from natural swings and not being able to withstand them, they think "this sh*t doesn't work, I'm done with it!" I'd be willing to say I believe this happens to a LOT of card counter wannabe's. Even if they can count well (big if), they don't have the BR to handle their spread or the game and when they bust they hang it up, chalking it officially to a wasted venture (when in reality it was their own fault).
Quote: RomesOn bankroll... if I know you only have $1,000 in your pocket, and that you won't play more if it's gone, then sure I'll let you spread $5-$500. If you play for a few hours you'll undoubtedly go broke and leave. While yes this is an extreme example, I feel this is where many counters go wrong too. They learn to count, etc, get $5k together and try to spread $25-$400. Then, when they bust in a few months from natural swings and not being able to withstand them, they think "this sh*t doesn't work, I'm done with it!" I'd be willing to say I believe this happens to a LOT of card counter wannabe's. Even if they can count well, they don't have the BR to handle their spread or the game and when they bust they hang it up, chalking it officially to a wasted venture (when in reality it was their own fault).
From the player's perspective -- absolutely agree.
From casino's perspective -- disagree.
Imagine this -- you are the "casino" and offer a coin-flip game. Tails = player loses $100. Heads = player wins $102. (ie: 1% advantage for the player....disadvantage for you the casino). There are 1,000 people with a $300 bankroll. Would you still book the bets. Each individual player is still more likely to bust out. Another way to look at it -- there are 10 people, each with a $300 bankroll. If their bankroll is depleted (bust out), they go home, and come back the next day with another $300 BR -- this'll continue until up to 1,000 "bankrolls" have gone through. OOORRRRR there is 1 person with a $300 bankroll, and if he busts out, he'll come back the next day with another $300...up to 1,000 days.
From your (the casino) perspective, it shouldn't matter who has how much money or what their ROR is.
If you disagree, you can be the casino and offer me this deal (but to speed up the process, instead of waiting 24 hours between bankrolls, we can just wait like 5 or 10 seconds). This is a good deal for you, I swear!!!
Another way to think of it: Idk if it's a gamblers fallacy (probably), but it's the "quitting when ahead" thing. If the casino is trying to "quit when ahead" (and their win goal is the player's BR), sure, they're going to have many small winning sessions. But eventually that session (player with small BR) is going to happen where the casino loses all their wins, plus some.
However... if you look at it from an individualistic perspective I still hold.
I don't care if you have 1,000,000 counters. If EACH individually have a $2k bankroll and try to spread $25-$400 they will ALL inevitably go broke at some point. The big difference between what you and I state is right now. You can't pool the 1,000,000 counters as one big bankroll because they're playing individually. Thus, regular team play will not work here... where you assume some lose $2k but others win $2k so for a team it works and they can bet $25-$400. No, they can't. They don't have enough money and individually each of them is way over betting their bankroll and thus they'll each bust. I'm assuming that the vast majority here will NOT play the game or try counting again... as in my experience with newbies this is exactly the case. They give it a shot with an underfunded bankroll and when they bust they say it doesn't work and never play the game again. So if 950,000 all lose their $2k and never play again, I've just made $1.9 billion... How much do you think the other 50,000 that come back with more money (and hopefully AGAIN enough money) could really make with their $25-$400 spread?
It kind of comes down to Kelly. I don't care how much of an advantage you have... if you bet 5x Kelly you'll go broke.
edit: I really do get what you're saying and what you're saying also makes sense. I'm leveraging the fact that the VAST majority will not return with more money after going broke once... Which I think is realistic from my experiences/reading/etc.
Quote: RomesI suppose it depends on perspective. I get what you're saying... how even if 1 person would bust there's a ton of others and if they're all playing at an advantage then that EV will add up over the casino and one of them is likely to help the "group" realize the EV. This is of course assuming that all of the wannabe's are counting/playing correctly too (again, big assumption).
However... if you look at it from an individualistic perspective I still hold.
I don't care if you have 1,000,000 counters. If EACH individually have a $2k bankroll and try to spread $25-$400 they will ALL inevitably go broke at some point. The big difference between what you and I state is right now. You can't pool the 1,000,000 counters as one big bankroll because they're playing individually. Thus, regular team play will not work here... where you assume some lose $2k but others win $2k so for a team it works and they can bet $25-$400. No, they can't. They don't have enough money and individually each of them is way over betting their bankroll and thus they'll each bust. I'm assuming that the vast majority here will NOT play the game or try counting again... as in my experience with newbies this is exactly the case. They give it a shot with an underfunded bankroll and when they bust they say it doesn't work and never play the game again. So if 950,000 all lose their $2k and never play again, I've just made $1.9 billion... How much do you think the other 50,000 that come back with more money (and hopefully AGAIN enough money) could really make with their $25-$400 spread?
It kind of comes down to Kelly. I don't care how much of an advantage you have... if you bet 5x Kelly you'll go broke.
edit: I really do get what you're saying and what you're saying also makes sense. I'm leveraging the fact that the VAST majority will not return with more money after going broke once... Which I think is realistic from my experiences/reading/etc.
I'm not really sure how to do the math & stuff on that.....but in an attempt to figure it out, I openned up CVCX:
DD, Zen, $2K BR, 95% ROR, $617.12/hour EV [100 HPH], spreading $200 to $1488. $1.9B for 50,000 people is $38,000 a person. Considering they're supposed to be making $617/hour in EV -- but they hit the huge upside (positive variance), I'd say they probably ACTUALLY making 8x to 20x their hourly EV. Even at 8x their hourly EV, that's about $5,000/hour. If they're making 12x (probably a good rough estimate I'd think?), they'd have an actual of $7400/hour. That's a little over 5 hours of play time.
Starting with a $2k BR and 1M people, the ROR being 95%, therefore 5% of people succeeded and went to a $4k bankroll (50K people). Now the ROR is lowered to about 90%, of which 10% are successful in getting to an $8k bankroll. Then about 81% ROR, 19% of people getting to $16K bankroll....etc.
# of ppl 1-ROR (1-0.95 = 0.05)....then 1-0.90 = 0.10, etc.....0.1% ROR = 1-0.001 = 0.999 [last #]
1000000 * 0.05 * 0.10 * 0.185 * 0.335 * 0.558 * 0.805 * 0.962 * 0.999 * 0.999
$2K $4k $8k $16k 32k 64k 128k 256k 512k 1.24M
And you end up with 133 people that have a $512K (and same # of people at $1.24M....$2.48M...etc.) bankroll.
Put another way --- You're a regular gambler that goes to the casino. You're playing against the house edge and are NOT playing a +EV game. You come up with a "win goal" strategy. All you gotta do is win some small amount of money every trip (say, $300). I assume we can both agree -- that is not a winning system. Stopping (or pausing) when ahead is not a winning system, when playing at a disadvantage.
Now turn the tables -- the casino has the disadvantage. All the casino has to do is win a small amount, the card-counter's bankroll. Is this a winning scenario for the casino?
Both scenarios are the same.
Quote: nodummy57I know most stores spend more trying to catch shoplifters than the shoplifter steal. But if you told shoplifters you never prosecute, things might change. Stop backing off counters and soon a non-counter will have hard time finding a seat, especially in a small casino. Be enough wannabes camping out at a 2 or 3 to 1 spread to grind away and tell each other how smart they are. How many losers will you need to overcome the actual good counters, who would be able to spread to their heart's delight ???
I think this is the real reason. As Romes argued the casinos have to keep BJ "beatable" because that is a big part of the game's draw. If every BJ game used an uncountable CSM and all the experts agreed it were unbeatable a lot of people (who are losing players now) would stop playing. However, you have to make some effort to stop the counters or they will proliferate.
Using myself as an example, I don't bother with counting because I only gamble for fun while vacationing in Vegas. It would take some effort for me to learn and the game conditions mean I would be playing with a tiny edge at best (I'm a low roller.) If conditions improved I might actually put in the effort to improve my chances of ending a trip a winner.
95% of the $2k bankrolls (so 950,000 people) go broke, and NEVER play the game again... That's a 1.9 BILLION dollar profit for my casino.
The other 5% make $2k, that's a dent of 100,000,000.
Now you can keep extrapolating, saying X continue to double their bankroll, etc... however I'll interject a few logistical things:
1) After a player has gone broke, they give up on counting and don't play the game (while counting) again. This, in my real life experience, seems all too true for 99% of counters I've, encountered =P.
2) Do you really think my casino would allow someone's bankroll to go from $2k, to $4k, to $8k, to $16k, etc, etc, etc, like clockwork? In the real world if you have those kinds of perfectly growing results, you'll be spotted and backed off/bar'd quite quickly. Again, most newb counters play with cards because they want the comps (not saying if you play with a card you're a newb, but just correlating that newbs almost always do play with cards). So your argument for those that will have "good variance" is more/less invalid due to the fact that the ones that get lucky enough to beat the 95% RoR will just get kicked out if they beat the 95% RoR, then the 90% RoR, then the 81% RoR... and how much did they dent me for in the process? $100,000,000? $200,000,000? ...That's fine I already made $1.9 billion from the original 95%.
3) Don't forget that each time these people are busting I'm recouping my losses and their original $2k. So on the 2nd pass, when you have 50,000 that beat the odds and doubled their bankroll to $4k, now 90% of them (45,000 people) will lose the $4k they have. It's depreciating returns from their numbers. Even if they double they're facing a monster RoR in which Kelly betting dictates they will hit a flux to go bust and then revert to Rule #1 (they won't play again).
Again, I don't see a way I don't make money from this situation... So long as they're individually playing way above kelly and when they bust they don't return.
I also say a 95% ROR is an extreme case, even for the absolute newest player. 30% is likely more realistic. Or whatever 20 max bets is. I don't think a max bet of 1500 with a 2k roll is something anyone would do.
I know of all too many that did the same exact thing as me and busted, swore it clearly didn't work, and never played again.
The difference between 100 people with 1 bankroll and 1 person with a 100 bankrolls is those 100 bankrolls for 1 person are really just 1 big bankroll (replenish-able bankroll essentially), minimizing RoR and making kelly betting proportional. With 100 people on 1 bankroll, each betting 5x kelly, they're going to go broke, 100% mathematically guaranteed. Then, the vast majority of them won't come back. Free money.
Quote: RomesOh really? =)... when I started I had $1000 and spread $25-$200 at a double deck game. That's 5 max bets...
I know of all too many that did the same exact thing as me and busted, swore it clearly didn't work, and never played again.
The difference between 100 people with 1 bankroll and 1 person with a 100 bankrolls is those 100 bankrolls for 1 person are really just 1 big bankroll (replenish-able bankroll essentially), minimizing RoR and making kelly betting proportional. With 100 people on 1 bankroll, each betting 5x kelly, they're going to go broke, 100% mathematically guaranteed. Then, the vast majority of them won't come back. Free money.
Argh....me right now:
Okay, how about this -- Would you agree (as a player) it's not possible to have a winning system by using win-goals/stop-losses? Under no (-EV) circumstances, even with a zillion dollar BR and a +$1 win goal....do you agree a win-goal/stop-loss strategy will not yield a winning system?
Depends on your length of play... In the long run no money management or win/stop goals will beat the game, agreed. Per night, you'll see fluctuation up and down (usually) and a win goal/stop loss could limit session activities. I'm still not a fan of either as the important thing to me is hands hands hands to get to the long run.Quote: RS...Okay, how about this -- Would you agree (as a player) it's not possible to have a winning system by using win-goals/stop-losses? Under no (-EV) circumstances, even with a zillion dollar BR and a +$1 win goal....do you agree a win-goal/stop-loss strategy will not yield a winning system?
How about 1 single example? Screw these million people... There's 1 guy, who saw the movie 21 and wants to count cards. He learns hi/low, but has NO CLUE of anything else that goes along with it. He gets $1,000 together and decides he's going to bet $25 in "low" counts and $500 in "big" counts. Kelly criteria tells us this person will mathematically bust. They have zero chance of not busting. The graph of their bankroll will mathematically dip below $1,000 with those betting limits relative to his bankroll. Now, okay, the guy went bust... Great. Now there's a 95% chance he won't get more money and won't try counting again. Even if he did get more money, who's to say he doesn't do nearly the same? He thinks, okay I've got another $1,000 this time I'll only bet $25-$250. That's still harshly over betting his bankroll and Kelly again would dictate his imminent demise. That's neither here nor there, let's just say the 95% holds true and he doesn't return. Where's his advantage now? He'll NEVER realize his advantage as he'll never get enough hands to withstand the variance flux in the game to get to a point where the variance is ruled out (the long run).
Okay, great, so this works for this 1 guy. Now let's apply the same criteria to 1,000,000 people... 950,000 of them will go broke and not even try again. 50k will try again, perhaps with lower betting limits, perhaps with more money, and perhaps with the exact same mistakes as the first time in which they will go broke and again 95% of the remaining won't try again.
RS - I totally understand what you're saying, BTW... I'm just showing that theories collide with each other. Kelly says they will all individually lose. The law of large numbers says as a group they will win (because they're playing a positive EV game and there's a vast number of them). You're stating from a casino standpoint they can all be considered one large group playing at an advantage. I'm simply using Kelly and a realistic failure/retry model that I've personally seen over and over like a broken record.
"Howwwwwwwwwww do I reeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaach these kiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiids?" =D
Take pics, and post..
<edit> 'Kiss and make up'? Jhit, I've used that term my whole life and reading it makes no sense whatsoever. Must have gotten it from my mommy.....
I knew that, mostly ;-)Quote: RomesWe're just playfully jabbing each other 2F, no worries. I've met RS and seen a lot of his posts on this and another site, and think he's a pretty smart guy. But my friend Kelly likes to argue =).
